There are many ways to support the argument that the Supreme Court's power of judicial review is not compatible with democratic government. First, the Supreme Court is an unelected body. All justices are appointed by the President, and appointments are approved by the Senate. Thus, the people do not directly vote for Supreme Court justices, which limits the representative character of the Court. An argument could be made that the Court is undemocratic because it does not represent the interests of the people. Second, the Supreme Court's power of judicial review allows the court to invalidate laws created and implemented by Congress, which is a representative elected body. Congress is the main representation of the people in the U.S. government, and the Court's ability to overturn laws it makes can be seen as an anti-democratic measure, as it is assumed that Congress is enacting the will of the people they represent. Third, the Constitution does not directly give the Court the power of judicial review. Instead, it is an implied power, taken from Articles III and VI of the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the U.S., and any law that conflicts with the Constitution is null and void. The federal courts are given the duty to interpret and apply the law, thus, they have the implied power to interpret and apply the Constitution (the supreme law of the land). Because the Supreme Court is the highest court with supreme jurisdiction in the U.S., it is the implied duty of the Supreme Court to decide whether laws are consistent with the Constitution. Because the power is not specifically assigned to the Supreme Court in the Constitution, an argument could be made that it is undemocratic in that the Court is assuming powers it was not explicitly assigned.
No comments:
Post a Comment